Stop voting for fucking Tories

[Tichtheid]

He said: “The territories colonised by our empire were not advanced democracies. Many had been cruel, slave-trading powers. Some had never been independent. The British empire broke the long chain of violent tyranny as we came to introduce – gradually and imperfectly – Christian values.”

Honestly, Christian values? They've resolved the structural issues left behind by Empire in Nigeria? Palestine? India, Pakistan, Bangladesh?

Absolute fucking imbecile

It might be funny if it weren't for the gallery he's playing to.

Someone should ask him about a timeline extension of the franchise in every part of the UK, just for starters, before the difficult questions on disenfranchisement and detachment

Advanced democracy my arse.

[petej]

Jenricks a tit. There were no advanced democracies in that era. Slave trading was normal. The British empire was significant with regard to slavery both in industrialising it and then banning it and neither should be downplayed but I would say that the latter came from humanist /socialist values rather than Christian ones and the wealthy slave owners did not give up their slaves for free but they were bought off them and the debt incurred is one that most UK posters will have contributed to paying off.

On the structural issues once the empire was gone - it is up to those countries to own and resolve for themselves. There is a lot delusion about the structures prior to the empire being all lovely and brilliant which will be total horse shit which a quick look at the east African or Indian ocean slave trade will rapidly dispell. A lack of acknowledgement that a lot of empire building comes from working already existing internal powers in those regions.

[epwc]

it is up to those countries to own and resolve for themselves.

How? The west has been involved directly and indirectly in regime change in all ex colonial territories, for strategic and financial gain. Territories that didn't even exist prior to Empire (Saudi Arabia, Nigeria etc)

The Saudi regime as a single example was installed by us and is 100% reliant on Western support

Agree there was no lovely peaceful Shangri La either here or in the colonised countries prior to Empire

[Paddington Bear]

Jenricks a tit. There were no advanced democracies in that era. Slave trading was normal. The British empire was significant with regard to slavery both in industrialising it and then banning it and neither should be downplayed but I would say that the latter came from humanist /socialist values rather than Christian ones and the wealthy slave owners did not give up their slaves for free but they were bought off them and the debt incurred is one that most UK posters will have contributed to paying off.

On the structural issues once the empire was gone - it is up to those countries to own and resolve for themselves. There is a lot delusion about the structures prior to the empire being all lovely and brilliant which will be total horse shit which a quick look at the east African or Indian ocean slave trade will rapidly dispell. A lack of acknowledgement that a lot of empire building comes from working already existing internal powers in those regions.

I appreciate we live in a secular age but Christianity was *the* driving force behind abolitionism. Socialism was barely in its infancy by the time it was abolished

And yes, I think it may well have come as a shock to a lot of people across West Africa and South Asia that they were ever part of the British Empire.

[petej]

it is up to those countries to own and resolve for themselves.

How? The west has been involved directly and indirectly in regime change in all ex colonial territories, for strategic and financial gain. Territories that didn't even exist prior to Empire (Saudi Arabia, Nigeria etc)

The Saudi regime as a single example was installed by us and is 100% reliant on Western support

Agree there was no lovely peaceful Shangri La either here or in the colonised countries prior to Empire

Not convinced more fiddling from the west will help progress those regions though we aren't the only people interfering (eg Russia). It is better if those countries resolve and progress things with less interference. Like Saddam was a nasty prick but did removing him help. Did installing and removing the Taliban in Afghanistan help? Territories/borders have shifted throughout history so any border created is disputable. Humans are just way messier than we like to pretend. With interfering you are damned if you do and damned if you don't.

[robmatic]

it is up to those countries to own and resolve for themselves.

How? The west has been involved directly and indirectly in regime change in all ex colonial territories, for strategic and financial gain. Territories that didn't even exist prior to Empire (Saudi Arabia, Nigeria etc)

The Saudi regime as a single example was installed by us and is 100% reliant on Western support

Agree there was no lovely peaceful Shangri La either here or in the colonised countries prior to Empire

Saudi Arabia is not a great example given that it was never a Western colony.

[Paddington Bear]

it is up to those countries to own and resolve for themselves.

How? The west has been involved directly and indirectly in regime change in all ex colonial territories, for strategic and financial gain. Territories that didn't even exist prior to Empire (Saudi Arabia, Nigeria etc)

The Saudi regime as a single example was installed by us and is 100% reliant on Western support

Agree there was no lovely peaceful Shangri La either here or in the colonised countries prior to Empire

Not convinced more fiddling from the west will help progress those regions though we aren't the only people interfering (eg Russia). It is better if those countries resolve and progress things with less interference. Like Saddam was a nasty prick but did removing him help. Did installing and removing the Taliban in Afghanistan help? Territories/borders have shifted throughout history so any border created is disputable. Humans are just way messier than we like to pretend. With interfering you are damned if you do and damned if you don't.

You read about the history of Empires (not just the British) and what becomes apparent is how often the central state is very very reluctantly pushed into wars they’d rather not fight by the perception that they have no choice.

[epwc]

Saudi Arabia is not a great example given that it was never a Western colony.

I disagree, it was colonised by someone, we dismantled that Empire and then decided to install a regime that we support to this day, even if they dismember journalists in their embassies

[Brazil]

Saudi Arabia is not a great example given that it was never a Western colony.

I disagree, it was colonised by someone, we dismantled that Empire and then decided to install a regime that we support to this day, even if they dismember journalists in their embassies

If you've not heard them, the Empire podcasts on the birth of Saudi are very interesting. StJOhn Philby was hugely significant in setting up Saud as King, and tilting the country to the US.

[Slick]

Saudi Arabia is not a great example given that it was never a Western colony.

I disagree, it was colonised by someone, we dismantled that Empire and then decided to install a regime that we support to this day, even if they dismember journalists in their embassies

If you've not heard them, the Empire podcasts on the birth of Saudi are very interesting. StJOhn Philby was hugely significant in setting up Saud as King, and tilting the country to the US.

Came across those a few weeks ago, absolutely brilliant. Just finishing off the India ones, the lucky sods.

[robmatic]

Saudi Arabia is not a great example given that it was never a Western colony.

I disagree, it was colonised by someone, we dismantled that Empire and then decided to install a regime that we support to this day, even if they dismember journalists in their embassies

I agree our support for the regime is despicable, but I don't see why Western colonialism is responsible for a place that was subject to 400 years of Islamic empire before independence. And I have met enough Saudis to severely doubt that it would be some sort of cosmopolitan liberal democracy without our involvement.

[epwc]

I agree our support for the regime is despicable, but I don't see why Western colonialism is responsible for a place that was subject to 400 years of Islamic empire before independence. And I have met enough Saudis to severely doubt that it would be some sort of cosmopolitan liberal democracy without our involvement.

The West is the dominant force militarily and geopolitically, so it is undoubtedly responsible if it installs and supports a truly troubling regime.

[epwc]

Not convinced more fiddling from the west will help progress those regions though we aren't the only people interfering (eg Russia). It is better if those countries resolve and progress things with less interference. Like Saddam was a nasty prick but did removing him help. Did installing and removing the Taliban in Afghanistan help? Territories/borders have shifted throughout history so any border created is disputable. Humans are just way messier than we like to pretend. With interfering you are damned if you do and damned if you don't.

More fiddling? How do the fuckers avoid more fiddling? Pakistan, Iran, Iraq the list of countries that have been and continue to be fiddled with by the west is VERY long.

I'm not saying they'd be better, saner places without it, but it's disingenuous to say "they should sort their own shit out"

[Brazil]

Saudi Arabia is not a great example given that it was never a Western colony.

I disagree, it was colonised by someone, we dismantled that Empire and then decided to install a regime that we support to this day, even if they dismember journalists in their embassies

I agree our support for the regime is despicable, but I don't see why Western colonialism is responsible for a place that was subject to 400 years of Islamic empire before independence. And I have met enough Saudis to severely doubt that it would be some sort of cosmopolitan liberal democracy without our involvement.

It remains a fact that the Sykes-Picot and the carve up of the Levant has had long standing impacts on the region and international politics as a whole. This is not entirely due to Britain/France given the US increasing interference in the region post WW2 (or pre-WW2 in the case of Saudi) but Sykes-Picot and the Balfour Agreement are two of the most profoundly significant decisions of the last century.

What responsibility the West still bears as a consequence of those decisions is open to question in my view, and as we get further from the historical events that produced theses states I think realpolitik has far more of a bearing than post-colonial hang ups. I also agree that the States established after the end of Empire have to bear their own responsibility as Empire fades in the rearview mirror, and things like reparations are often a convenient figleaf to excuse more immediate and recent failings.

[robmatic]

I agree our support for the regime is despicable, but I don't see why Western colonialism is responsible for a place that was subject to 400 years of Islamic empire before independence. And I have met enough Saudis to severely doubt that it would be some sort of cosmopolitan liberal democracy without our involvement.

The West is the dominant force militarily and geopolitically, so it is undoubtedly responsible if it installs and supports a truly troubling regime.

Don't the Saudis have any agency?

[epwc]

Don't the Saudis have any agency?

Yes, but if they (the regime) exercise that by being a brutal and oppressive regime based on the unequivocal support they receive from the US/UK then that basically enables what happens. It's not happening in isolation, the Sauds could not have stayed in power for what will soon be 100 years without Western support, so what would you expect to happen? Do you fancy being an objective journalist or protester in Saudi?

If I ever get the time I'll compile a list of all the regimes toppled by Western interference worldwide, in near enough all cases they have been replaced by brutally oppressive regimes that we facilitate. There is no state that is unaffected by external powers (whether it's Russia, China or the West)

[Sandstorm]

Don't the Saudis have any agency?

Yes, but if they (the regime) exercise that by being a brutal and oppressive regime based on the unequivocal support they receive from the US/UK then that basically enables what happens. It's not happening in isolation, the Sauds could not have stayed in power for what will soon be 100 years without Western support, so what would you expect to happen? Do you fancy being an objective journalist or protester in Saudi?

Meh, apart from a short battle in 1914 against the Ottoman's no Western country has invaded Saudi Arabia. They were never a colony. They have no claim like India, Caribbean or African nations.

If the greedy Arab fucks want to take money from The West and use it to treat their own people like dirt, then that's on them.

[epwc]

If the greedy Arab fucks want to take money from The West and use it to treat their own people like dirt, then that's on them.

It's not, unless we drop the pretence that we actually care about human rights or democracy. If the UK and US say tomorrow that we accept that the Saudis operate a brutal and oppressive regime, but we still want to supply them with arms and buy their oil, then maybe. But no, that's not the case at all, we pretend we give a shit, we have the power to modify the behaviour of our partners if we choose to exercise it.

[epwc]

And what I'm talking about isn't specific to Empire (although it covers every brown nation we've ruled over), it's about the Wests role in creating and propping up regimes for their own purposes.

[Paddington Bear]

I disagree, it was colonised by someone, we dismantled that Empire and then decided to install a regime that we support to this day, even if they dismember journalists in their embassies

I agree our support for the regime is despicable, but I don't see why Western colonialism is responsible for a place that was subject to 400 years of Islamic empire before independence. And I have met enough Saudis to severely doubt that it would be some sort of cosmopolitan liberal democracy without our involvement.

It remains a fact that the Sykes-Picot and the carve up of the Levant has had long standing impacts on the region and international politics as a whole. This is not entirely due to Britain/France given the US increasing interference in the region post WW2 (or pre-WW2 in the case of Saudi) but Sykes-Picot and the Balfour Agreement are two of the most profoundly significant decisions of the last century.

What responsibility the West still bears as a consequence of those decisions is open to question in my view, and as we get further from the historical events that produced theses states I think realpolitik has far more of a bearing than post-colonial hang ups. I also agree that the States established after the end of Empire have to bear their own responsibility as Empire fades in the rearview mirror, and things like reparations are often a convenient figleaf to excuse more immediate and recent failings.

The thing about criticising Sykes-Picot is that there’s rarely a realistic and *at the time* viable alternative put forward.

On the wider point I agree that this has become a figleaf. It gets a little tedious hearing about how ex-colonial powers are responsible for 21st century ills when you have numerous examples available of ex-colonies dealt poor hands that have made a success of it. Pakistan, to take an example, has been the architect of its own misfortune regardless of outside meddling

[epwc]

Pakistan, to take an example, has been the architect of its own misfortune regardless of outside meddling

Pakistan is a complete basket case, but it's ridiculous to say there hasn't been outside meddling. The fucker who set the country on the pathway to religious intolerance was installed with the backing of the US:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Zia-ul-Haq

I'm not saying that without external involvement they'd be a squeaky clean open society but it's absolute bollocks to say there is no external involvement in Pakistan

[Paddington Bear]

Pakistan, to take an example, has been the architect of its own misfortune regardless of outside meddling

Pakistan is a complete basket case, but it's ridiculous to say there hasn't been outside meddling. The fucker who set the country on the pathway to religious intolerance was installed with the backing of the US:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Zia-ul-Haq

I'm not saying that without external involvement they'd be a squeaky clean open society but it's absolute bollocks to say there is no external involvement in Pakistan

Good job I didn’t say that then!

[epwc]

How many non white ex colonies have "made a success of it"?

India maybe if you disregard the rampant corruption and increasing religious persecution?

[Paddington Bear]

How many non white ex colonies have "made a success of it"?

India maybe if you disregard the rampant corruption and increasing religious persecution?

Depends what you define as a success, but my starters for 10 would be:
India
Singapore
Malaysia
South Korea
Vietnam
Ghana
Botswana
Seychelles
UAE
Antigua
Bahamas

[epwc]

Depends what you define as a success

Quite, if you look at corruption:

https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2023

Or human rights; "Freedom" index:

https://worldpopulationreview.com/count ... by-country

Not many in your list are doing that well....

[epwc]

Those maps make a good case for eugenics eh? White people definitely=better

[Paddington Bear]

Depends what you define as a success

Quite, if you look at corruption:

https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2023

Or human rights; "Freedom" index:

https://worldpopulationreview.com/count ... by-country

Not many in your list are doing that well....

All matters of opinion, but I think you’d find yourself in a minority as an Indian if you considered that country not to have made a success of itself, and of course in a massive minority should you think the same of Singapore, its non western attitude to human rights not withstanding.

What links all of the above is being able to massively lift the standard of living of its people in the post-colonial era. South Korea was poorer than much of West Africa after the war, had been rapaciously treated by Japan then pummelled in a brutal war. Look at it today. Vietnam had thirty years of war and has recovered remarkably.

Rejecting your white/non white divide, of course the best example would be Poland.

The point being, malign western influence does not force a country to be a basket case. Pakistan had a bad hand and played it appallingly, because it has had generations of elites who have done stupid shit and show no signs of slowing down.

[epwc]

I'm not Indian, my parents were born there and then moved penniless to Pakistan as a result of that wonderfully well executed exit from empire in India. But regardless, I'm British, I was born here and have lived my whole life here and have paid taxes here my whole working life.

I do agree that Pakistan has done the worst possible job for itself and it's people but this is due in no small part to the role played by external powers.

Another example is Iran, would it have been a victim of an Islamic revolution if the Shah hadn't been installed?

https://apnews.com/article/ap-was-there ... 0aa3f1f4d7

Just in case you didn't know (although I'm sure you do).

And malign Western influence has everything to do with multiple abhorrent regimes in ex colonies.

[Paddington Bear]

I'm not Indian, my parents were born there and then moved penniless to Pakistan as a result of that wonderfully well executed exit from empire in India. But regardless, I'm British, I was born here and have lived my whole life here and have paid taxes here my whole working life.

I do agree that Pakistan has done the worst possible job for itself and it's people but this is due in no small part to the role played by external powers.

Another example is Iran, would it have been a victim of an Islamic revolution if the Shah hadn't been installed?

https://apnews.com/article/ap-was-there ... 0aa3f1f4d7

Just in case you didn't know (although I'm sure you do).

And malign Western influence has everything to do with multiple abhorrent regimes in ex colonies.

I didn’t suggest you were Indian, I meant it in the same vein as ‘if I were Irish I would not think Jonny Sexton was a wanker’ styling. Appreciate my phrasing could have been better.

Iran is an interesting one. The first element being that I appreciate its non-U to point it out, but oil is pretty bloody important. Are you seriously suggesting any major global power at any point in history *would not* have taken steps to secure their supply?

Was there western meddling? Yes. However can you conjure up an Islamic Revolution from thin air? No. Iranians had agency and chose to install then accept and indeed fight for that regime. There’s every chance that a similar chain of events happens regardless.

One thing that comes across a lot in Imperial and Cold War histories is the question of who is using who. To take the British Raj as an example, the wealthy Bengalis who threw in their lot with the East India Company did it from a position of some strength. Faisal, Hussein et al did not join the First World War to save Brave Little Belgium or to ease Britain’s manpower crisis.

Fast forward to today and we still see that the client state (Israel) has an oversized influence on its paymaster and can ignore a lot of its whims. Plenty of third world groups paid lip service to Communism/Christianity/Democracy/Anti-Imperialism for just long enough to get their guns. That’s their agency in action.

There are plenty of examples of states that have gone through the ringer and haven’t ended up or stayed as basket cases. Generally there has been enough of a faction unwilling to accept that status. As I have said already, there is not the willpower among Pakistani elites to make things better, and that is the primary reason why they are where they are.

[epwc]

Iran is an interesting one. The first element being that I appreciate its non-U to point it out, but oil is pretty bloody important. Are you seriously suggesting any major global power at any point in history *would not* have taken steps to secure their supply?

No, I'm absolutely not. What I am saying seemingly unsuccessfully is that the West can't have it both ways; fuck over lots of countries for their own purposes resulting in huge damage, large scale deaths and the empowerment of corrupt elites and then say "well it's up to them innit?"

The West needs to stop painting itself as this benevolent force for good that is constantly frustrated by the locals.

What did Afghanistan achieve? Loads and loads of Western forces with PTSD and disabilities, multiplied by many 1000s of times for the local population. Almost forgot, the return of the Taliban too.

Iraq? Fuck me, that was brilliant that was. I'm pretty damn sure that Iraq is more dangerous and has suffered more civilian casualties since the allied invasion than under Saddam.

Libya? I know many people of African and Asian descent that lived and worked there before Gaddafi was toppled, they didn't have any issues with the place (granted they were coming from much more corrupt and poorer places)

[epwc]

As I have said already, there is not the willpower among Pakistani elites to make things better, and that is the primary reason why they are where they are.

On that I wholeheartedly agree, but Pakistan is constantly subject to external influences, and all of it's elites are harboured by the West when they need to be.

[Paddington Bear]

Iran is an interesting one. The first element being that I appreciate its non-U to point it out, but oil is pretty bloody important. Are you seriously suggesting any major global power at any point in history *would not* have taken steps to secure their supply?

The West needs to stop painting itself as this benevolent force for good that is constantly frustrated by the locals.

What did Afghanistan achieve? Loads and loads of Western forces with PTSD and disabilities, multiplied by many 1000s of times for the local population. Almost forgot, the return of the Taliban too.

Iraq? Fuck me, that was brilliant that was. I'm pretty damn sure that Iraq is more dangerous and has suffered more civilian casualties since the allied invasion than under Saddam.

Libya? I know many people of African and Asian descent that lived and worked there before Gaddafi was toppled, they didn't have any issues with the place (granted they were coming from much more corrupt and poorer places)

I agree with these paragraphs totally. Seeing foreign policy and history as a morality play is silly and leads to silly outcomes

[Tichtheid]

Apropos of nowt really, but his name came up. Saddam Hussein was in the Premier League of bad people - name any of the worst bad people from history and Saddam Hussein was in the same ball park.

This doesn't excuse anything, it's not an apology for anything, it doesn't ignore who put him there or kept him there, it just is.

[fishfoodie]

Iran is an interesting one. The first element being that I appreciate its non-U to point it out, but oil is pretty bloody important. Are you seriously suggesting any major global power at any point in history *would not* have taken steps to secure their supply?

The West needs to stop painting itself as this benevolent force for good that is constantly frustrated by the locals.

What did Afghanistan achieve? Loads and loads of Western forces with PTSD and disabilities, multiplied by many 1000s of times for the local population. Almost forgot, the return of the Taliban too.

Iraq? Fuck me, that was brilliant that was. I'm pretty damn sure that Iraq is more dangerous and has suffered more civilian casualties since the allied invasion than under Saddam.

Libya? I know many people of African and Asian descent that lived and worked there before Gaddafi was toppled, they didn't have any issues with the place (granted they were coming from much more corrupt and poorer places)

I agree with these paragraphs totally. Seeing foreign policy and history as a morality play is silly and leads to silly outcomes

What's the alternative ?

.... just ignore any pretense of morality completely ?

i.e. become Vladimir Putin, & say there is no morality that I subscribe to, & I just do what makes me happy, & fuck the rest of you !

The issue wasn't morality, it was the self-delusion that what they pursued as policy had any basis is their declared morality. The West has been just as bad as Putin throughout the Cold War, but just did a better job on PR !

There's a great picture of George H Fucking Bush sucking off Saddam, while GHWB was the CIA Director.

Now as CIA Director, there is no doubt that he knew what a repugnant piece of shit Saddam was, but to the US eyes, he was their piece of shit; because as long as Saddam was using WMDs against the Iranians, he was their boy !

Saddam wasn't unique, he was the rule; Noriega, Marcos, Papa Doc ...... all cunts, just different degrees

It's not as if the non-morality version of policy has been an extraordinary success so far, so why not try the morality version; it can hardly be worse, can it ?

[epwc]

So in almost every case we shaped the tyrants that resulted in fucking over whole regions of the globe. But now it’s all their fault, and they should sort it out.

[Paddington Bear]

The West needs to stop painting itself as this benevolent force for good that is constantly frustrated by the locals.

What did Afghanistan achieve? Loads and loads of Western forces with PTSD and disabilities, multiplied by many 1000s of times for the local population. Almost forgot, the return of the Taliban too.

Iraq? Fuck me, that was brilliant that was. I'm pretty damn sure that Iraq is more dangerous and has suffered more civilian casualties since the allied invasion than under Saddam.

Libya? I know many people of African and Asian descent that lived and worked there before Gaddafi was toppled, they didn't have any issues with the place (granted they were coming from much more corrupt and poorer places)

I agree with these paragraphs totally. Seeing foreign policy and history as a morality play is silly and leads to silly outcomes

What's the alternative ?

.... just ignore any pretense of morality completely ?

i.e. become Vladimir Putin, & say there is no morality that I subscribe to, & I just do what makes me happy, & fuck the rest of you !

The issue wasn't morality, it was the self-delusion that what they pursued as policy had any basis is their declared morality. The West has been just as bad as Putin throughout the Cold War, but just did a better job on PR !

There's a great picture of George H Fucking Bush sucking off Saddam, while GHWB was the CIA Director.

Now as CIA Director, there is no doubt that he knew what a repugnant piece of shit Saddam was, but to the US eyes, he was their piece of shit; because as long as Saddam was using WMDs against the Iranians, he was their boy !

Saddam wasn't unique, he was the rule; Noriega, Marcos, Papa Doc ...... all cunts, just different degrees

It's not as if the non-morality version of policy has been an extraordinary success so far, so why not try the morality version; it can hardly be worse, can it ?

Foreign policy as a morality play was liberal interventionism, in its various forms justifying colonial expansion all the way to the Iraq War. Arming the Mujahideen had moral overtones in the Cold War ffs. So I don’t accept it hasn’t been tried, it’s more that it doesn’t work. And of course what is moral is a relative concept that is up for debate

[Sandstorm]

So in almost every case we shaped the tyrants that resulted in fucking over whole regions of the globe. But now it’s all their fault, and they should sort it out.

Tyrants have been fucking over their own people and neighbours for millennia. It's not always The West that was responsible:

The 10 Most Brutal Dictators in History
Ivan the Terrible
Vlad the Impaler
Pol Pot
Leopold II
Adolf Hitler
Joseph Stalin
Genghis Khan
Mao Zedong

Idi Amin
Saddam Hussein

Only the last two benefitted wholly from The West support.

In Africa before the Whites even arrived in 1652, the Zulus treated the tribes they conquered and assimilated like dirt.
In Europe we called the dictators Kings and Queens to try to give them a sheen of respectability.

Those who filled the vacuum left by Colonialism or who profited from oil in the Middle East in the last 50 years, have to look at their own leaders alongside "The Whites" for their current hardships.

People always fuck over each other. It's human nature.

[fishfoodie]

So in almost every case we shaped the tyrants that resulted in fucking over whole regions of the globe. But now it’s all their fault, and they should sort it out.

Tyrants have been fucking over their own people and neighbours for millennia. It's not always The West that was responsible:

The 10 Most Brutal Dictators in History
Ivan the Terrible
Vlad the Impaler
Pol Pot
Leopold II
Adolf Hitler
Joseph Stalin
Genghis Khan
Mao Zedong

Idi Amin
Saddam Hussein

Only the last two benefitted wholly from The West support.

In Africa before the Whites even arrived in 1652, the Zulus treated the tribes they conquered and assimilated like dirt.
In Europe we called the dictators Kings and Queens to try to give them a sheen of respectability.

Those who filled the vacuum left by Colonialism or who profited from oil in the Middle East in the last 50 years, have to look at their own leaders alongside "The Whites" for their current hardships.

People always fuck over each other. It's human nature.

I'd love to see what metrics they used to compile that list, because I've a feeling they pulled the numbers from their arses if the Mao & Stalin as less brutal than Vlad

[Rhubarb & Custard]

Needs more Tamerlane

[SaintK]

Having sold only a couple of thousand in hardback, for some delusional reason she thinks she's going to sell lots more of her ridiculous book in paperback!!!!
I am amazed the delusional woman hasn't been sectioned yet